Welcome back. On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 20:21:07 +0000, Jon Perryman wrote: > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019, 08:14:36 PM PDT, David Crayford wrote: > > >On 2019-10-07 2:06 AM, Jon Perryman wrote: > >>> I'm saying that IBM can't fix this problem because the problem lies with >>> Unix shell design. > >> IBM can and have fixed the problem! BPXBATCH is so bad they wrote a >> replacement AOPBATCH which works just as Kirk describes. > >IBM does not consider BPXBATCH bad. AOPBATCH is not a replacement for >BPXBATCH. The AOP group wanted something different than BPXBATCH. I believe >that BPXBATCH was documented as running a Unix command but we stacked commands >by using the semicolon command separator. > >AOPBATCH simply changes the problems. IBM doesn't need to address those >problems because they are outside the scope of AOP. > Oh, my. True Blue!
An often-criticized limitation of BPXBATCH is that it does not tolerate instream data sets or classic data sets as STDIN. AOPBATCH removes that limitation and introduces no new limitations (AFAIK?) Stacked commands using a semicolon separator do not allow "#" comments. Comments are widely considered a valuable aspect of coding technique. Are you arguing for a semantic distinction between "fixing a problem" and "removing an onerous limitation"? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
